This is an archive of past discussions with User:SMcCandlish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

May 2018=

Welcome back

Missed you. But WP and life go on... Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Aw... Well, I need a break from this from time to time, or it starts feeling like a (very low-paying) job. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nextdoor

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nextdoor. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue

Done

– Already had commented on this one.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daoism–Taoism romanization issue. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Fe High School shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Blank lines

I was trying to follow the guidance on blank lines of MOS:INDENTGAP in an edit in the Pedro Perebal AfD talk but it didn't work. Could you tell me what went wrong and how can I add the blank lines to my wall of text following the guideline? Thinker78 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

I am certain that if you succeeded an RfA, you'd be an excellent administrator. It's possible that the quorum attending your RfA will fail to recognize your gifts, but I think it's worth the endeavor and hope you will give it a go. I understand if you decide against a run, but hope that you'll read the linked essay, and know that it does speak of you.--John Cline (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If you do run I'd enthusiastically support you. But I'd actually advise against it because it might take away too much of the time that you use to work and add to valuable topics, research, and discussions. Sometimes when good editors become admins they fade away, and the encyclopedia is the worse for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

John, I appreciate the sentiment, but it would never happen. I don't kiss enough a[ss|rse], am curmudgeonly, and have a focus on WP:AT/WP:MOS. The combination of these generates a lot of "enemy"-styled posturing toward me, despite any peace offerings I make. Some of them have a lot of friends, and bear grudges deeply and for a very long time (over a decade now in many cases), which of course will turn into another e-mail canvassing farm against me. I've come to the conclusion that usually the only way to become an admin here is to go for it within the first two years or so, and to spend that period glad-handing people as much as possible, avoiding all controversy, and racking up AfD and other statistics. RfA doesn't care much about competence, experience, and institutional memory, but about how well you play political games to win the popularity contest. If you've been around long enough to irritate much of anyone (other than drive-by vandals and CoI pushers), you won't pass.
I also don't want it, mostly for the reason Randy homed in on. I've seen what adminship does to too many productive editors, turning them into drama-mongering wannabe cops more interested in power- and class-based gamesmanship, or at best into well-intentioned admins mired in an endlessly cycling bureaucratic grind instead of actually improving the encyclopedic output. It's rare in my view for an admin to maintain a balance, and it looks like a tremendous amount of work and stress to do so successfully. I don't need stress and extra work, or drama. I was willing to run for ArbCom, because it's not day-in, day-out administrative drudgery, but limited spurts of conflict that really do need resolution, with a rule structure in place that prevents it turning into a psychodrama cellpool like AN/I is. I also ran for ArbCom because the body needs at least one non-admin on it, for balance. (I got more support than several who were elected – they simply got less opposition, motivated by the same reasons that I would be opposed at RfA.) But I don't need or want the mop, especially in the present environment in which it's used more like a weapon than a tool.
I understand (and have been pretty forthright about) the fact that WP is undergoing a slow (even overdue) organizational lifecycle transition, in which rules and order and structure and procedures and enforcement of them are likely to be more necessary, as WP becomes a world-wide institution instead of a weird experiment. But I don't want to be in the HR, PR, or campus security departments. I have more on-point work to do here, when I have time for it. So, thank you again for the kind words, but it's just not a role for me. I was a professional activist for a long time, and I bring some of that to what I do here. I'm better as something vaguely analogous to a tenured professor who'll call the administration on their bullshit when it's necessary, but who's otherwise doing the research and editorial work I'm supposed to be here for.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello SMcCandlish, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leo Tolstoy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad the "feedback request" bot decided to pop this on your page. I've wondered when seeing this bot at work, how are these notices not canvassing, and how does it choose? A brave and strange new world. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:FRS explains how it chooses (in short by picking randomly from pools of people interested in RfCs on particular topical ranges, and up to a limit per category or total). In actual operation, it's a little mysterious. I've set no limit for policy- or style-related RfCs, but it still does not notify me of all of them. [shrug]. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that before, thanks for pointing it out and explaining it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No prollem. A word of warning: it's easy to get sucked into doing little here other than RfCs. I had to dial it back a lot. I originally signed up for RfCs on everything of vague interest to me, with few limits, and it turned into a bit of a firehose. I'd leave for a day, find 10 RfC notices, and spend all my WP time on the RfCs. PS, in answer to a question I missed: It's not canvassing because the notices are neutral. FRS bot doesn't tell you how to respond, or leave notices only for people on a particular side, or only those with a vested interest in the page from prior edits; it just doesn't spam people with geography-related RfCs if they say they don't want them, and so on. The fact that it won't notify you of all RfCs in a given topic area even if you set it to unlimited is probably on purpose, to prevent an obsessive from hitting every single comics and manga (or whatever) RfC for a decade and coming to dominate the discourse in that whole swath of article categories. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of flags by number of colors. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess there really is no limit to how stupid a list can be. E Eng 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's my initial reaction, too, though I wonder if there's a heraldry/vexillology rationale for such a list. I know from studying heraldry a little, half a lifetime ago, that the colors available and how they can be used are limited (in ways that vary between, e.g., English, French, and German heraldry). I'm skeptical this applies to flags, since they haven't been under thumb of the heraldry crowd for a century or so, and are more often created by design teams then voted on by the population of the place they're meant to represent. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia

Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Perebal

Done

Your input is appreciated. Thinker78 (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)